DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see Remarks, filed 07/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered, but is moot because of the new ground of rejection under 35 USC § 103 based on a newly found prior art, Kesler, US 2016/0087687.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the limitation “wherein, in the first mixed mode, lower security mode is applied for the second data packet,” in lines 17, 17 and 15, respectively, and should read “wherein, in the first mixed mode, a lower security mode is applied for the second data packet,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-PGPUB No. 2022/0407932 A1 to Lee, and further in view of US-PGPUB No. 2016/0087687 A1 to Kesler et al. (hereinafter “Kesler”)
Regarding claim 1:
Lee discloses:
A wireless power receiver (¶07: “… a power transmitter and a power receiver in a wireless power transfer system.”, see Fig. 7, power receiver PRU 710), which receives a wireless power from a wireless power transmitter (see Fig. 7, power transmitter PTU 750), comprising:
a power pickup (see Fig. 7, Rx resonator 712) related to receiving the wireless power from the wireless power transmitter (see Fig. 7, the Rx resonator 712 receives power from Tx resonator 752 of PTU 750);
and
a communicator/controller (see Fig. 7, MCU and OOB Signaling Module 722) related to controlling the wireless power (¶119: “The power supply 758 may receive external power and internal power under the control of the MCU to supply power required for operation of each component.”), wherein the wireless power receiver, transmits, to the wireless power transmitter in a negotiation phase or a renegotiation phase, a specific request packet including information for a mode used in a power transfer phase (¶136-137: “In the negotiation state, … the PRx transmits a negotiation request to the PTx, … When the PTx receives a specific request (SR) packet for negotiating a change in the power transfer contract transmitted by the PRx, the PTx may transition to a calibration state (960). … PRx may provide information on received power in different load conditions. It may also return to the selected state when it transitions to the power transfer state, or when calibration fails or an error occurs, based on SR packets, general request packets, FOD status packets, proprietary packets, reserved packets, etc. in the remediation state.”); and
enters the power transfer phase with the wireless power transmitter (¶137: “… PRx may provide information on received power in different load conditions. … it transitions to the power transfer state,”),
wherein, based on the mode specifying that in-band communication and out-band communication is simultaneously used in the power transfer phase (¶217: “The PRU may also support in-band wireless power reception and communication and OOB communication (e.g., BLE-based communication).”, see Fig. 15), the wireless power receiver transmits or receives a first data packet based on the in-band communication (¶140: “… power control and FOD are performed in-band, …”) and the wireless power receiver transmits or receives a second data packet based on the out-band communication (¶140: “power control, FOD, and authentication may be performed through BLE …”),
wherein the mode includes a first mixed mode (¶140: “… power control and FOD are performed in-band, and some other information may be authenticated through BLE. ”) and a second mixed mode (¶140: “power control, FOD, and authentication may be performed through BLE … and coil and PRx detection may be performed in-band to perform power transfer.”),
wherein, in the first mixed mode, the first data packet comprises power control related information (¶140: “… power control and FOD are performed in-band, …”),
wherein, in the first mixed mode, lower security mode is applied for the second data packet (¶94: “Qi defines authentication information such as a certificate and a certificate chain for authentication between a PTU and a PRU, … The authentication between the PTU and the PRU is an essential procedure for safe wireless power transfer. Therefore, OOB also needs to support it.”, see also ¶140: “… other information may be authenticated through BLE.”),
wherein, in the second mixed mode, the second data packet comprises power control related information (¶140: “power control, … may be performed through BLE …”), and
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Kesler:
wherein, in the second mixed mode, higher security mode which has a higher security level than the lower security mode is applied for the second data packet (Kesler, ¶1024: “… a wireless energy transfer system using out-of-band communication is shown in FIG. 120B. … To prevent eavesdropping and provide security the out-of-band communication channel may be encrypted and the source and device may follow any number of known cryptographic authentication protocols.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teachings of Kim to incorporate the algorithm showing the series of steps which may be used to explicitly verify an energy transfer channel in a wireless energy transfer system using out-of-band communication, and encrypt the out-of-band communication channel to provide security and prevent eavesdropping, as disclosed by Kesler, such modification would enable the system to provide significant security advantages by protecting the power control and authentication data exchanged between a power transmitter and receiver.
Regarding claim 10:
Lee discloses:
A wireless power transmitter (see Fig. 7, PTU 750), which transmits a wireless power (¶07: “… a wireless power transfer system.”) to a wireless power receiver (see Fig. 16, PRU 710), is configured to comprising:
a converter related to transmitting the wireless power to the wireless power receiver (see Fig. 7, Tx Resonator 752);
In addition to the above limitations, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 in the form of a power transmitter. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 10 in the form of a method to implement the corresponding functionality. Therefore, it is rejected by the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHIAS HABTEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1916. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William R. Korzuch can be reached on (571)272-7589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 2491
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491